Nettleship v Weston: a learner driver crashed into a lamppost, and was said to breach their study as it wasn't reasonably competent.

Young - reasonably competent person of the same age.

Mullins v Richards: two 14 year old girls were play fighting with rulers where 1 broke and went into a girls eye.

Professional: a higher standard of care.

Bolam: 1. Would a reasonably competent professional also make this decision? 2. Is there a substantial body that would support the decision of the defendant?

Risk Factors

Practical Precautions

Latimer v AEC: a factory flooded and the employer put down mats and sawdust, but the victim still slipped. Took all practical precautions.

Special characteristics of the claimant

Paris v Stepney Borough Council: where the victim was blind in one eye, and the metal went into his other eye and he went completely blind. Employer did have to provide goggles.

Size of the risk

Haley v London Electricity Board: where a blind man fell into a trench and became deaf but the workers didn't take any precautions for the blind.

Benefit of the risk

Watt v Hertfordshire CC: the victim was told to carry the jack on his knee as the fire brigade were only going a short distance. He injured his leg, but the benefit of saving the person's life outweighed the victim's injury.

Damage

Factual Causation

BUT FOR TEST: Barnett - a man went to the hospital because of stomach pains and vomiting, the doctor sent him away and he died of arsenic poisoning that night.

But for, the doctor sending the victim away, he would still have died.

Can hold multiple people liable: Fairchild - but for, you all exposing him to asbestos, he wouldn't have died.

Remoteness of Damage

The damage must not be too remote from the defendant's actions - The Wagon Mound.

The type of injury must be foreseeable, not the extent.

Hughes v Lord Advocate: a burn was foreseeable, even if the extent was not.

Novus Actus

Orange: there was a novus actus because he wasn't a known suicide risk.